[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sir GH, you can call it "angry drivel" if you like, but I tend to get riled up when people insult gay people. It's not the civilized thing to do, or humane, and it's particularly bizarre on a site called "Queenzone."[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. But I hope you can see from this topic that the accused are actually decent people who don't truly believe those insults at face value and are having nothing more than innocent fun.
[QUOTE]Once, flying to America on [the] Concorde, he discovered a large stash in his bag and, in an attempt to avoid an awkward US customs bust, snorted the lot. "Freddie didn't need the plane," his personal manager Paul Prenter recounted. "He was so high on drugs he could have flown over the Atlantic by himself."[/QUOTE]
Gotta say, this is ridiculously funny!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Steven -- I've seen/listened to the Wigg interviews for 20 years now, and I do see it as a document of someone who has already settled down. Perhaps where you and I differ is that I don't see his drug use--or his sex life, for that matter--as "disturbing." I see it as a rock star's life, one that's interesting and compelling and inspiring in many ways. Not that I'm going to go on the Concorde and snort coke, but I do think it makes Freddie a character worthy of capturing on film.
Freddie's life is a compelling storyline. Capturing the dynamics of he and his bandmates? Not so interesting to me. That would truly be a feat: to make John Deacon's life interesting. Freddie's the star, he's the star of the movie. He's the one who shouts at construction workers and offers them sex. That's rock and roll. Such "promiscuous" behavior -- so common among the gays, as Yara likes to point out -- leads to him dying. It's a freaking opera is what it is.
Freddie's life is a compelling storyline. Capturing the dynamics of he and his bandmates? Not so interesting to me. That would truly be a feat: to make John Deacon's life interesting. Freddie's the star, he's the star of the movie. He's the one who shouts at construction workers and offers them sex. That's rock and roll. Such "promiscuous" behavior -- so common among the gays, as Yara likes to point out -- leads to him dying. It's a freaking opera is what it is.
GH -- For myself, I don't regard Zebonka's comments as "innocent fun." I take offense at them.
Yeah, I can see how it gets under your skin, as we all draw our line of humour somewhere different. Cheers.
Yara, it still isn't clear to me exactly what you're saying so apologies if get this wrong. You seem to be arguing that Freddie's decision to hide his gayness from the british public does not reflect badly on the british public. Is that correct? If so, I disagree. Despite having a reputation for tolerance, in reality being openly gay in the UK up until relatively recently could be a career killer. That's why so many celebrities kept their sexuality private.* I think this is a natural reaction to an unhealthy social climate. And it reflects badly on the intolerance of british society in that time period. Similarly, racism against Pakistanis, West Indians, Indians etc living in the UK was openly expressed and often violent. No wonder Fred chose to hide his ethnic roots and 'passed' as white. This too reflects badly on british society. This would make a good angle for a film, but maybe not one that would be too popular.
*it's a lot differnt today btw.
*it's a lot differnt today btw.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Steven -- I've seen/listened to the Wigg interviews for 20 years now, and I do see it as a document of someone who has already settled down. Perhaps where you and I differ is that I don't see his drug use--or his sex life, for that matter--as "disturbing." I see it as a rock star's life, one that's interesting and compelling and inspiring in many ways. Not that I'm going to go on the Concorde and snort coke, but I do think it makes Freddie a character worthy of capturing on film.
Freddie's life is a compelling storyline. Capturing the dynamics of he and his bandmates? Not so interesting to me. That would truly be a feat: to make John Deacon's life interesting. Freddie's the star, he's the star of the movie. He's the one who shouts at construction workers and offers them sex. That's rock and roll. Such "promiscuous" behavior -- so common among the gays, as Yara likes to point out -- leads to him dying. It's a freaking opera is what it is.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough -- but I don't find his sex life disturbing. I think it was who he was as a person, and there was nothing wrong with that. But, yes, his coke addiction does disturb me a bit. But as I have said, at least he didn't let it take over his career, or let it destroy Queen. He was even able to quit without the help of rehab. That takes a great deal of personal ambition and determination.
Freddie's life is a compelling storyline. Capturing the dynamics of he and his bandmates? Not so interesting to me. That would truly be a feat: to make John Deacon's life interesting. Freddie's the star, he's the star of the movie. He's the one who shouts at construction workers and offers them sex. That's rock and roll. Such "promiscuous" behavior -- so common among the gays, as Yara likes to point out -- leads to him dying. It's a freaking opera is what it is.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough -- but I don't find his sex life disturbing. I think it was who he was as a person, and there was nothing wrong with that. But, yes, his coke addiction does disturb me a bit. But as I have said, at least he didn't let it take over his career, or let it destroy Queen. He was even able to quit without the help of rehab. That takes a great deal of personal ambition and determination.
If half of the accounts of what his coke intake in the 80s is true, it's amazing he didn't end up in rehab, actually.
I think Freddie had a very strong persona. Meaning he wasnt very perceptable to other peoples opinions. Never doing something to fit in. Only doing stuff because he wanted to. Most cokeheads lack most of the mentioned things. He always knew how far he could go. (except one time in the early eighties, which he paid for in the early nineties)
# Holly2003: "Yara, it still isn't clear to me exactly what you're saying so apologies if get this wrong. You seem to be arguing that Freddie's decision to hide his gayness from the british public does not reflect badly on the british public. Is that correct?"
Yes. And I disagree with you there, because I don't think he ever hid his gayness. He just didn't speak much about it, which is different.
If Elton John decided to marry because he felt he had something to hide - which was not hidden, regardless of his try at improving his image - I think it's more likely that it REFLECTS VERY BADLY ON HIM. But that's a different story altoghether and I don't want to hijack the thread. And, of course, it's my personal opinion - I don't judge the guy.
"If so, I disagree."
I know that. I see your point. :-)
"Despite having a reputation for tolerance, in reality being openly gay in the UK up until relatively recently could be a career killer."
Queen was a huge success in U.K (and Germany, and Austria, and Italy) all throughout the 80's, when Freddie was openly gay.
"That's why so many celebrities kept their sexuality private.* I think this is a natural reaction to an unhealthy social climate."
No. It's a moral, personal decision, not a law of nature.
"And it reflects badly on the intolerance of british society in that time period. Similarly, racism against Pakistanis, West Indians, Indians etc living in the UK was openly expressed and often violent. No wonder Fred chose to hide his ethnic roots and 'passed' as white."
Though by revealing his identity, being a very famous singer, he could actually improve U.K's image. People could find it interesting as a propaganda device. Who knows? It's just that it's neither here nor there: he decided to hide it, period. No one forced him to do it. It was his decision.
"This too reflects badly on british society."
Maybe, I'm not qualified to pass judgements on the British society.
"This would make a good angle for a film, but maybe not one that would be too popular."
I don't think so.
I think UP's idea is very good: I guy wanting to be loved, who was loved by many people he cheated on, who finally found someone he really felt good with - among all that, promiscuity. Terms like "not very promiscuous", "not as crazy", don't mean nothing. The guy was promiscuous, by his own words: I have just re-listened to the 1987 interview. He makes it very clear: I was a mess, very promiscuous, before getting into a stable relationship.
His words.
So, we have the following predicament: Freddie never denied he was promiscuous, but there are people here wanting to undermine the fact.
Freddie didn't like to talk about his sexuality, but people want to make a movie not about the musician, but about his sexuality.
So, the movie could be called: "We don't care for Freddie and don't respect him".
Good biopic?
Yes. And I disagree with you there, because I don't think he ever hid his gayness. He just didn't speak much about it, which is different.
If Elton John decided to marry because he felt he had something to hide - which was not hidden, regardless of his try at improving his image - I think it's more likely that it REFLECTS VERY BADLY ON HIM. But that's a different story altoghether and I don't want to hijack the thread. And, of course, it's my personal opinion - I don't judge the guy.
"If so, I disagree."
I know that. I see your point. :-)
"Despite having a reputation for tolerance, in reality being openly gay in the UK up until relatively recently could be a career killer."
Queen was a huge success in U.K (and Germany, and Austria, and Italy) all throughout the 80's, when Freddie was openly gay.
"That's why so many celebrities kept their sexuality private.* I think this is a natural reaction to an unhealthy social climate."
No. It's a moral, personal decision, not a law of nature.
"And it reflects badly on the intolerance of british society in that time period. Similarly, racism against Pakistanis, West Indians, Indians etc living in the UK was openly expressed and often violent. No wonder Fred chose to hide his ethnic roots and 'passed' as white."
Though by revealing his identity, being a very famous singer, he could actually improve U.K's image. People could find it interesting as a propaganda device. Who knows? It's just that it's neither here nor there: he decided to hide it, period. No one forced him to do it. It was his decision.
"This too reflects badly on british society."
Maybe, I'm not qualified to pass judgements on the British society.
"This would make a good angle for a film, but maybe not one that would be too popular."
I don't think so.
I think UP's idea is very good: I guy wanting to be loved, who was loved by many people he cheated on, who finally found someone he really felt good with - among all that, promiscuity. Terms like "not very promiscuous", "not as crazy", don't mean nothing. The guy was promiscuous, by his own words: I have just re-listened to the 1987 interview. He makes it very clear: I was a mess, very promiscuous, before getting into a stable relationship.
His words.
So, we have the following predicament: Freddie never denied he was promiscuous, but there are people here wanting to undermine the fact.
Freddie didn't like to talk about his sexuality, but people want to make a movie not about the musician, but about his sexuality.
So, the movie could be called: "We don't care for Freddie and don't respect him".
Good biopic?
YARA: I don't think he ever hid his gayness. He just didn't speak much about it, which is different.
I don't think he ever spoke about it to the British press or his fans until the 1980s. I distinctly recall a story in The Sun in which he supposedly outed himself, but he quickly denied it. He said something like "If I was going to admit I was gay do you think I would do it to the fucking Sun?" This would've been around the time of The Works. I would say he was hiding his gayness rather than just being reticent.
YARA: Queen was a huge success in U.K (and Germany, and Austria, and Italy) all throughout the 80's, when Freddie was openly gay.
I can only speak for the UK. Freddie was not "openly gay" at all when he was alive. Not publicly at least, but most definitely amongst his friends. There is a difference between being "camp" and being openly gay. I think Fred knew this. Kenny Everett certainly did. I think Fred judged correctly that it would hurt his career to be "openly gay". And let's face it, many fans are in denial even today about his sexuality. how many times have you hear the line, "He wasn’t gay, he was bisexual"?
YARA: No. It's a moral, personal decision, not a law of nature.
I didn’t say it was a law of nature, I said it was Fred's "natural reaction" to an unhealthy social climate. In other words, a rational decision taken not to expose himself to a possible anti-gay backlash.
YARA: Though by revealing his identity, being a very famous singer, he could actually improve U.K's image. People could find it interesting as a propaganda device. Who knows? It's just that it's neither here nor there: he decided to hide it, period. No one forced him to do it. It was his decision.
That is a very simplistic, head in the sand, attitude. People often make decisions based on how others will react. This is perhaps even more the case when celebrity and wealth are involved.
YARA: Maybe, I'm not qualified to pass judgements on the British society.
I am! ;)
I don't think he ever spoke about it to the British press or his fans until the 1980s. I distinctly recall a story in The Sun in which he supposedly outed himself, but he quickly denied it. He said something like "If I was going to admit I was gay do you think I would do it to the fucking Sun?" This would've been around the time of The Works. I would say he was hiding his gayness rather than just being reticent.
YARA: Queen was a huge success in U.K (and Germany, and Austria, and Italy) all throughout the 80's, when Freddie was openly gay.
I can only speak for the UK. Freddie was not "openly gay" at all when he was alive. Not publicly at least, but most definitely amongst his friends. There is a difference between being "camp" and being openly gay. I think Fred knew this. Kenny Everett certainly did. I think Fred judged correctly that it would hurt his career to be "openly gay". And let's face it, many fans are in denial even today about his sexuality. how many times have you hear the line, "He wasn’t gay, he was bisexual"?
YARA: No. It's a moral, personal decision, not a law of nature.
I didn’t say it was a law of nature, I said it was Fred's "natural reaction" to an unhealthy social climate. In other words, a rational decision taken not to expose himself to a possible anti-gay backlash.
YARA: Though by revealing his identity, being a very famous singer, he could actually improve U.K's image. People could find it interesting as a propaganda device. Who knows? It's just that it's neither here nor there: he decided to hide it, period. No one forced him to do it. It was his decision.
That is a very simplistic, head in the sand, attitude. People often make decisions based on how others will react. This is perhaps even more the case when celebrity and wealth are involved.
YARA: Maybe, I'm not qualified to pass judgements on the British society.
I am! ;)
Fair play, Holly2003. I see your points and they are no doubt legitimate.
Good discussion throughout. ;-)
Take care!
Good discussion throughout. ;-)
Take care!
I'll watch it only if Johnny Depp plays Freddie. If he doesn't, I won't watch it and I'm afraid I'll have to burn some theatres then....
I really do think Depp could make something out of this film, and with DeNiro's production company behind it, this first draft of a script (many go through 20, 30, 40 drafts) could become something special.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I really do think Depp could make something out of this film, and with DeNiro's production company behind it, this first draft of a script (many go through 20, 30, 40 drafts) could become something special.[/QUOTE]
I think you do have a point here. Johnny Depp is a very fine actor, not only because he's convincing on screen, which is great, but mainly because he's very creative and inventive. He more or less shapes the characters as much, or even more, than the director or the writer.
That he is the actor is a hope. More of a hope, even, when we know that he's fond of music in general and of rock music in particular.
I find it hard to believe that Depp would accept doing the first draft, as it is and has been described here. I pretty much doubt.
I do think there's hope there. Well, the guy went as far as to RS guitar player Keith Richards to shape his character (a Pirate!), so no doubt the guy is inventive and creative and is linked to music.
Yeah, I would rather see Jim Burton directing this one, it'd be a hell of a movie in terms of creativity - because that's what's Deep and Burton are partially about: trying to make things a bit different from what we usually see in the movies - and intelligence, but, well, I liked "The Hours", so...let's see, it may turn out to be interesting.
Well, The Hours is another good example of a movie I could direct if I took some lessons, I think(lol): if I had Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Ed Harris and the post-Dogville Nicole Kidman, well, the movie would be interesting at least. lol
So, here I stand: I hope to see a good movie. That's it. I'm talking now like a simple movie-goer, not as a Queen fan.
Because, well, I have to be realistic: the movie is going to be made, it seems. So, if it's going to be made, I think it's a sign of hope that there's Johnny Depp there. And that this is alledegly the first draft.
So, let's see.
:-)
I think you do have a point here. Johnny Depp is a very fine actor, not only because he's convincing on screen, which is great, but mainly because he's very creative and inventive. He more or less shapes the characters as much, or even more, than the director or the writer.
That he is the actor is a hope. More of a hope, even, when we know that he's fond of music in general and of rock music in particular.
I find it hard to believe that Depp would accept doing the first draft, as it is and has been described here. I pretty much doubt.
I do think there's hope there. Well, the guy went as far as to RS guitar player Keith Richards to shape his character (a Pirate!), so no doubt the guy is inventive and creative and is linked to music.
Yeah, I would rather see Jim Burton directing this one, it'd be a hell of a movie in terms of creativity - because that's what's Deep and Burton are partially about: trying to make things a bit different from what we usually see in the movies - and intelligence, but, well, I liked "The Hours", so...let's see, it may turn out to be interesting.
Well, The Hours is another good example of a movie I could direct if I took some lessons, I think(lol): if I had Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Ed Harris and the post-Dogville Nicole Kidman, well, the movie would be interesting at least. lol
So, here I stand: I hope to see a good movie. That's it. I'm talking now like a simple movie-goer, not as a Queen fan.
Because, well, I have to be realistic: the movie is going to be made, it seems. So, if it's going to be made, I think it's a sign of hope that there's Johnny Depp there. And that this is alledegly the first draft.
So, let's see.
:-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's a freaking opera is what it is.
[/QUOTE]
A Freddie opera? Now *there's* an idea!
[/QUOTE]
A Freddie opera? Now *there's* an idea!